$.13. carp. §.2. Refurrection at all. If fo, Ignatius could not write a Doctrine fo entirely contrary to the first Principles of Chriftianity. (5.) In the fame Epiftle we have these Words, Καὶ τὰς παρθένες, τὰς λεγομβρίας χήρας. Et Virgines vocatas viduas. How Virgins fhould be called Widows in the Days of Ignatius, tho' when they were ancient they might be fuftain'd in common with them, I do not well understand: Especially when the Larger Copy here, and all the like Parallel Places of Antiquity elfewhere, fpeak diftinctly of thefe two Orders in the Church. (6.) In the Smaller Epiftle to Polycarp we have Ad Poly- this Claufe; Ἵνα τα φαινόμβα σε εἰς πρόσωπον κολα ndins. Ut manifefta in tuam faciem blandiaris. The Larger I easily understand, where the Verb is επανορθώσης. But what Senfe to make of κολακε ys, I cannot tell: Nor can I imagine how fo improper a Word came into this place. §. 5. §. I. (7.) In the fame Epistle we have these Words, της κακοτεχνίας φαγε μᾶλλον ἢ πεί τέτων ὁμιλίων ποιδ Malas artes fuge: magis autem de his homeliam fac. This is directly contrary to the Coherence, to leave out the negative Particle in the laft Claufe; and equally contrary to the Larger Copy alío. (8.) In the very Beginning of the Smaller Epiftle to the Ephesians, we have these Words, 'AraAdEphef, ζωπυρήσαντες ἐν ἅιματι Θεῖ. Reaccendentes in fanguine Chrifti Dei. If thefe Words, as is univerfally fuppos'd, relate to the Famous Text in the Ads of the Apostles, where we now read 'Ennanoiar î Θεό, ἦν περιεποιήσατο διὰ τὰ ἰδιά αιματος, they are plainly of the Fourth Century: It appearing from Dr. Mills, that no Copy, Verfion, or Citation, had that Verse fo till Athanafius. Nay, fince the Latin here has both Chrifti, Dei; just as fome Copies in the 4s have weiss, one wou'd A&s xx. 28." think the feveral Interpolations arose from the fame Original, or had fome near Relation one to another. But whether that be fo or not, this Paffage is a fhrewd Sign, that the Smaller Epistles were not written before the Fourth Century. And this is indeed fo notable a Character of the late Date of thefe Copies, that it might have made a diftinct Argument by it felf; and deferves the cautious Readers particular Obfer vation. (9.) In the fame Epiftle, the Ufe of the Se&t. 3. Word ufisadi, efpecially as fpoken of Ignatius and the Ephefians jointly, is no good Sign: of Genuine Antiquity: There appearing no juft Occafion for that Word here; and the Word it, felf, either Simple or Compound, as Bishop Pearfon obferves, is not elsewhere found in the Greek Language. The Larger Epiftle has a better Word, duo, without all. Difpute or Ambiguity. (10.). Nor do the Criticks well know what to Ibid. do with the Claufe immediately following, 'Eus δ ἔδει ὑφ ̓ ὑμῶν παλειφθῆναι, πίσει κ. τ. λ. Me enim oportet à vobis fufcipi, fide, &c. The Larger Epiftle has here ora, as the Senfe requires. D (11.) A little lower we have this Period in Ibid. the fame Smaller Epiftle, Kai Sinous gesos, αδιάκριτον ἡμῶν ζῆν, τὸ πατρὸς ἡ γνώμη καὶ ὁι ὀπίσκοποι, δι καὶ τὰ πέρατα ὁριθέντες, ἰησε χεις γνώμη εἰσιν. Etenim Fefus Chriftus, incomparabile noftrum vivere, Patris, fententia; ut & ipfi fecundum terræ fines determinati. Jefu Chrifti fententia funt. This obfcure Language is not at all like that of Ignatius; but muft belong to fome difficult and confus'd Writer afterward. (12.) Nor is this, which foon follows, at all Sect. 4. better ; "Ινα ὑμῶν καὶ ἀκέση, καὶ ἐπιγινώσκων δι' ὧν δὲ πρά WETE, UnλN ÖVTES TÕ vs cure. Ut & vos audiat, & cog C 4 nofcat Sec. 5. ་ ས་༦་ Se&t. 8. Ibid. rbid. Se&. 9. nofcat per quem bonum operamini, membra existentes filii ipfius. (13.) Prefently after we have this Claufe: 'E 28 ἑνὸς καὶ δευτέρας προσοχή τοσαύτην ἔν ἔχει. Si enim unius & alterius oratio tantam vim habet. Sure the Reddition in the Larger compleats the Original Sentence of Ignatius, Qs + xeisὸν ἐν αὐτοῖς ἐςάναι. Which Reddition is entirely wanting in the Smaller. This Defect feems to imply, that the Smaller here is only an Abridgment of the Larger. (14.) Soon after we have this Phrafe, Maui fers oversay on vuir. Neq; una lis complexa eft in vobis. Which Phrafe is, I believe, a perfect Stranger to the Greek Language. (15.) As is alfo this which follows, Kai dyriμαι ὑμῶν ἐφεσίων ἐκκλησίας. Caftificetur a veftra Ephefiorum ecclefia. This feems only a Blunder, or Mif-reading of fome ignorant Fellow, for the true one in the Larger Copy, Καὶ ἡ ἁγιοτάτης έφεσίων εκκλησίας. (16.) This next Affertion is not much better, Α Α και και σάρκα προς τα ταῦτα πνευματικά δι Qua autem & fecundum carnem operata funt hæc fpiritualia funt. Hear the Parallel Words of the Larger Epiftle, and tell me which are the most like to Paul and Ignatius : ἐδὲν σαρκικὸν, ἀλλὰ τον θυματικό πάντα ανά (17.) Hear another Paffage in the Smaller, which prefently follows: Βύσαντες τὰ ὦτα, εἰς τὸ με παραδέξας τα πειρόμθμα ὑπ' αὐτῶν, ὡς ὄντες λίθοι vas wargis. Obftruentes aures, ad non recipere feminata ab ipfis, ut exiftentes lapides templi Patris. This feems an ill contriv'd Abridgment of a Noble Context in the Larger; and by introducing Men ftopping their Ears, that they may not hear what is fowed by the Hereticks, as being Stones of the Temple of God, does fo jumble together inconfi ftent ftent Metaphors, that one cannot, without great Injustice, afcribe it to fo great a Man as Ig natius. (18.) Soon after follow thefe Words: Tes's Sea, 19. ὀργὶς αὐτῶν ὑμεῖς πραείς. Πρὸς τὰς μεγαλορημοσιας αὐτῶν ὑμεῖς ταπεινόφρονες. Πρὸς της βλασφημίας αὐτῶν ὑμεῖς προ σαχάς. Πρὸς ἢ πλάνην αὐτῶν ὑμεῖς ἑδαῖοι τῇ πse. Ad iras ipforum vos menfueti; ad magniloquia eorum vos bumilia fapientes; ad blafphemias ipforum vos orationes; ad errorem ipforum vos firmi fide. This is plainly an ill-digefted Abridgment of the Larger . ! . Copy here; which never wants Verbs and Words of Connection, as the Smaller so often does. (19.) Then it follows, Tir waior fixnder; is Ibid. αποςερηθεῖ; τίς ἀθετηθεῖς ἵνα μὴ τὸ διαβολο βοτάνη τις ευsér úμir. Quis plus injuftum patiatur? quis frau μεθῇ ἐν ὑμῖν. detur? quis contemnatur? ut non diaboli berba quis in veniatur in vobis. A fine Paffage for Ignatius to write. ~ C (20.) Yet is the next rather worfe! HS Sect. 11. : μέλλας ὀργὴν φοβηθώμων, ἢ ἢ ἐνες ~ χάριν ἀγαπήσωμαι. ἐν τῇ δύο μόνον ἐν χεις ἰησί ευρεθῆναι εἰς τὸ ἀληθινὰν ζῆν. χωρὶς τέτε μηδὲν ὑμῖν πρεπέτω, ἐν τῷ το δέσμα π φέρω, του πνευματικές μαργαρίτας, εν δις λύοιτο μου avasiva. Vel enim futuram iram timeamus, vel præfentem gratiam diligamus: unum duorum. Solum in Chrifto Jefu invenitur in verum vivere. Sine ipfo nibil vos deceat. In quo vincula circumfero, fpiritu les margaritas, in quibus fiat mihi refurgere. To fet down fuch incoherent Paffages is fufficiently to expose them. (21.) Soon after the Words med is, feem Sect. 12: only put for gadis y, which are in the Larger,according to good Senfe,and the Coherence of the Place. And indeed this Abridger feems in many Places, either not to have been able, or at leaft not to have been willing to read and abridge truly Ibid. Epift. ad I. Se&t. 13, 14. Se&t. 14. truly those Words that lay before him in the Larger. (22.) Presently we have this Affertion concerning Paul: Ὃς εν πάση επιςολή μνημονεύει ύμων. Qui in omni Epiftola memoriam facit veftri. I doubt this is by no means true in any fair Senfe whatfoever. Polycarp intimates, that Paul wrote 'Ensenas, more than one Epistle to the Philippians: And Paul himself feems to hint the fame thing; Τὰ αὐτὰ γράφειν ὑμῖν ἐμοὶ μὲὸ ἐκ ὀκνηρὸν, ὑμῖν ἢ ἀσφα s. But that Paul wrote more than one Epiftle to the Ephefians, we have no Reason to believe. And to fay that Paul made mention of them in every Epistle,fuppofing he had written two to them, is ftill not very proper. But to fay fo with Regard to the rest of Paul's Epiftles, is utterly falfe: And yet to render thofe Words in the whole Epiftle, feems hardly fatisfactory. So that after all, I fear these are not the Words of Paul's Bishop Ignatius. (23.) It follows foon after; 'Evas óreμos ταργεῖο ἐπκρανίων καὶ ἐπιγείων ὧν ἐδὲν λανθάνει ὑμᾶς. x. T. λ. In qua omne bellum evacuatur cæleftium & terreftrium: quorum nullum latet vos, &c. I doubt this is utterly falfe; for I do not perceive that any Chriftian is fo perfectly acquainted with the invifible Powers, that none of them are hidden from him. The Larger Copy is more rational and confiftent in this Place. (24.) Yet is the next Affertion more hardly to be reconcil'd with Truth, and with the Scripture: Ουδείς πίσιν ἐπαγγελλόμῳ ἁμαρτάνει. Nullus fidem repromittens peccat. The Larger has it, páλει ἁμαρτάνειν. I fuppofe every body will allow this to be the truer Reading. (25.) Soon after we have these Words: "Ira Set. 15. μω αυτό ναοὶ, καὶ αυτὶς ᾗ ἐν ἡμῖν Θεὸς ἡμῶν, ὅπερ και ὅσιν καὶ φανήσεις στο προσώπε ἡμῶν, ἐξ ὧν δικαίως ἀγαπῶ |